TRUMP PRESIDENT NAAAHHH!!! and the Trail of Delicious Liberal Tears

Bill Lehecka

Whiny Man Baby
Donator
So let me get this straight... When we went to war and all the conservatives were super-psyched and all the liberals complained, THE FUCKING HIPPIES WERE RIGHT?
I think it’s humorous that you’re still looking at the decisions Trump makes through a liberal/conservative lens. I get that’s a default option, but still. All it does is keep tribalism alive.

If we’ve learned anything these past 3 years, it’s that Trump is neither liberal nor conservative. He’s Trump. He doesn’t care if something political makes him look bad or doesn’t fit in with his political affiliations. That makes him dangerous to opponents. He just does things.

Is he an ass? Absolutely. But he refuses to have himself pigeonholed into a political
Ideal. I think that’s why a lot of people respect him. He doesn’t play nice. The unfortunate drawback to this is that it attracts the more ridiculously ideologies to the party and that is what opponents will focus on in an attempt to shame people who support Trump’s initiatives.

His political opponents fight him with the old playbook. They still haven’t learned that that playbook doesn’t work on him. I don’t know if they’ll ever adapt. Trump is playing a game they’re not familiar with, hence why there’s an air of desperation. The fact that Hillary is even considering to run is just so desperate I can’t even fathom the Dems even considering it.
 

Opie&JimmyShow

Well-Known Member
Donator
So let me get this straight... When we went to war and all the conservatives were super-psyched and all the liberals complained, THE FUCKING HIPPIES WERE RIGHT?
What upsets me the most is that no one had the vision to see that there would be other avenues in technology that would have prevented us from going in the way we did, when we did.

Who knows how different things may have been had we not stirred up that Hornets nest. People seem to forget liberals wanted go in too. They were the ones crying that the worlds number 1 resource was in short supply and we wouldn't have anymore in 25 years. That was almost 20 years ago. Today the United States is the world's largest energy producer and shockingly the liberals in control of blue states that are Rich in natural gas and oil won't allow it to be brought up.

It has always been about power and control for liberals. They used to be less obvious about how they went about it. In the past few years they have been exposed by themselves and others. All of there predictions have been proven to be false, fear mongering lies. They are losing control and all they have left is being screaming at the top of their lungs that the world is coming to an end, the science is settled and we are a racist society if we don't follow them. They will justify all these acts with violence.

They are a desperate group.




Sent from your Mom's box.
 
Last edited:

Stig

Fucking your mother.
I think it’s humorous that you’re still looking at the decisions Trump makes through a liberal/conservative lens. I get that’s a default option, but still. All it does is keep tribalism alive.

If we’ve learned anything these past 3 years, it’s that Trump is neither liberal nor conservative. He’s Trump. He doesn’t care if something political makes him look bad or doesn’t fit in with his political affiliations. That makes him dangerous to opponents. He just does things.
My post was a great post. A beautiful post. One might call it perfect. A perfect post. This is a partisan hit job!
:haha7::haha7::haha7::haha7::haha7::haha7::haha7:
Actually, since Trump wasn't there in 2001, I'm talking about Conservatives. And yeah, everyone in the government got sucked in by the bad intel. But at street level, it was the predictable left/right split. I was right in there with every other republican wanting to bomb everything in site at the time.

I've come to hate the tribalism. I don't support the far right or far left. But in this thread, if you shit on the right, they just assign you to the left. Binary politics is all the fine gentlemen here understand.
 

Stig

Fucking your mother.
Nope now the hippies are bitching he is pulling troops out...
Well, we are running out on the people who have helped us like little bitches, and nobody in the region will ever trust us again.
That's the quagmire we're in for going there in the first place.
 
Well, we are running out on the people who have helped us like little bitches, and nobody in the region will ever trust us again.
That's the quagmire we're in for going there in the first place.
I thought we were only there for the oil... maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan
 

Atomic Fireball

Well-Known Member
Donator
Trump is forcing his twitter tapeworms to explain why endless US entanglement in the ME is a moral imperative and he's literallyhitler for removing 50 troops.



Why aren't they clamoring for the evil "new Russia" Turkey to be kicked out of NATO? We're literally in a mutual defense treaty with them.

 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Trump is forcing his twitter tapeworms to explain why endless US entanglement in the ME is a moral imperative and he's literallyhitler for removing 50 troops.



Why aren't they clamoring for the evil "new Russia" Turkey to be kicked out of NATO? We're literally in a mutual defense treaty with them.

That 180-degree turn from liberal doves to bloodthirsty warhawks must've snapped a lot of necks.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Well, we are running out on the people who have helped us like little bitches, and nobody in the region will ever trust us again.
That's the quagmire we're in for going there in the first place.
Nobody in that region has ever, or will ever, trust us, and the sentiment should be 100% mutual.

Fuck those sand rats.

You're absolutely right that we shouldn't be there, and Trump was finally the leader with big enough balls to rip off the band-aid.
 

ruckstande

Posts mostly from the shitter.
Donator
Nobody in that region has ever, or will ever, trust us, and the sentiment should be 100% mutual.

Fuck those sand rats.

You're absolutely right that we shouldn't be there, and Trump was finally the leader with big enough balls to rip off the band-aid.
I just don't know why we care. Eric Trump had a fantastic point yesterday. The left bitches and moans about drilling for oil and gas in the us and does everything they can to obstruct. However, the sons and daughters of Congress have jobs working in foreign countries don't the opposite. Fuck the middle East and their oil. We can do what we want here. Why should we give a shit what some dirt merchants do in some shitty place no one would visit?
 

MurphCO

Enough of this palaver
Donator
WE

HAVE

NUKES

IN

TURKEY

they don't have us by the balls, but it makes things complicated, and the nukes are planned to be moved (likely Greece) but that hasn't happened yet so we are in a pickle and Trump is holding the various countries to their word and deals, don't think he really believes they will do what they say, but its also not our fight

Don't forget how badly Russia got its ass kicked in Afghanistan


edited to add, older Turks love Americans
 

JoeyDVDZ

Well-Known Member
Donator
Well, we are running out on the people who have helped us like little bitches, and nobody in the region will ever trust us again.
That's the quagmire we're in for going there in the first place.
To counter, at what point do the Kurds learn to fend for themselves? How many more decades should we hold their hand until they learn how to be independent? We did NOT adopt a retarded child, after all. We're not responsible for them for the rest of our lives.
 

Pickle

Registered User
WE

HAVE

NUKES

IN

TURKEY

they don't have us by the balls, but it makes things complicated, and the nukes are planned to be moved (likely Greece) but that hasn't happened yet so we are in a pickle and Trump is holding the various countries to their word and deals, don't think he really believes they will do what they say, but its also not our fight

Don't forget how badly Russia got its ass kicked in Afghanistan


edited to add, older Turks love Americans
Wassat?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
To counter, at what point do the Kurds learn to fend for themselves? How many more decades should we hold their hand until they learn how to be independent? We did NOT adopt a retarded child, after all. We're not responsible for them for the rest of our lives.
They've been at each others throats for over a thousands years, but what we should've done is wait for a lull in the action to pull out.

I seriously saw some Orange Man Badnik saying we should do a "slow, diplomatic withdrawal".

And my eyes rolled out of my head.

Yeah, lets pull our dicks out of the hornets nest slowly and sweetly.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
I think it’s humorous that you’re still looking at the decisions Trump makes through a liberal/conservative lens. I get that’s a default option, but still. All it does is keep tribalism alive.

If we’ve learned anything these past 3 years, it’s that Trump is neither liberal nor conservative. He’s Trump. He doesn’t care if something political makes him look bad or doesn’t fit in with his political affiliations. That makes him dangerous to opponents. He just does things.

Is he an ass? Absolutely. But he refuses to have himself pigeonholed into a political
Ideal. I think that’s why a lot of people respect him. He doesn’t play nice. The unfortunate drawback to this is that it attracts the more ridiculously ideologies to the party and that is what opponents will focus on in an attempt to shame people who support Trump’s initiatives.

His political opponents fight him with the old playbook. They still haven’t learned that that playbook doesn’t work on him. I don’t know if they’ll ever adapt. Trump is playing a game they’re not familiar with, hence why there’s an air of desperation. The fact that Hillary is even considering to run is just so desperate I can’t even fathom the Dems even considering it.
That's the biggest question I've had the last 3 years - where are all the moderate, well known, well respected Democrats, and why aren't any of them besides Biden running for President? Yes, there are some sensible people that have thrown their name in, but they're too young and too unknown and they haven't been able to make any headway. You'd think someone decent would have stepped in, but no. Like I said yesterday, I'm nearly positive that the majority of the party knows they can't run a wackjob like Warren. The damage of doing that would go well beyond simply losing in 2020.

It has to be Hillary. With Biden's campaign faltering and nobody else stepping in, she's pretty much all they've got.
 

Opie&JimmyShow

Well-Known Member
Donator
Trump is forcing his twitter tapeworms to explain why endless US entanglement in the ME is a moral imperative and he's literallyhitler for removing 50 troops.



Why aren't they clamoring for the evil "new Russia" Turkey to be kicked out of NATO? We're literally in a mutual defense treaty with them.

Is it even that many?

Sent from your Mom's box.
 

HandPanzer

Shantih Shantih Shantih
We must stay in Syria eternally to protect the Communist PKK forc--I mean, the completely pure Syrian Democratic Forces who weren't renamed to better their brand and who totally love us and our freedoms.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
For the first time in history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower tax rate than the working class last year
October 8, 2019 at 5:01 PM EDT

A new book-length study on the tax burden of the ultrarich begins with a startling finding: In 2018, for the first time in history, America’s richest billionaires paid a lower effective tax rate than the working class.
The Triumph of Injustice,” by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the University of California at Berkeley, presents a first-of-its kind analysis of Americans’ effective tax rates since the 1960s. It finds that in 2018 the average effective tax rate paid by the richest 400 families in the country was 23 percent, a full percentage point lower than the 24.2 percent rate paid by the bottom half of American households.

In 1980, by contrast, the 400 richest had an effective tax rate of 47 percent. In 1960, their tax rate was as high as 56 percent. The effective tax rate paid by the bottom 50 percent, by contrast, has changed little over time.

The analysis differs from many other published estimates of tax burdens by encompassing the totality of taxes Americans pay: not just federal income taxes but also corporate taxes, as well as taxes paid at the state and local levels. It also includes the burden of about $250 billion of what Saez and Zucman call “indirect taxes,” such as licenses for motor vehicles and businesses.

The analysis, which was the subject of a column in the New York Times on Monday, is also notable for the detailed breakdown of the tax burden of not just the top 1 percent but also the top 0.1 percent, the top 0.01 percent and the 400 richest households.
The focus on the ultrarich is necessary, Saez and Zucman write, because those households control a disproportionate share of national wealth: The top 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 60 percent of households, while the top 0.1 percent own as much as the bottom 80 percent. The top 400 families are a “natural reference point,” Zucman says, because the IRS publishes information on the top 400 taxpayers as a group, and other sources, such as Forbes, track the fortunes of the 400 wealthiest Americans.

The relatively small tax burden of the super-rich is the product of decades of choices made by American lawmakers, some deliberate, others the result of indecisiveness or inertia, Saez and Zucman say. Congress has repeatedly slashed top income tax rates, for instance, and cut taxes on capital gains and estates. Lawmakers have also failed to provide adequate funding for IRS enforcement efforts and allowed multinational companies to shelter their profits in low-tax countries.

With the Republicans' tax plan heading to President Trump's desk to be signed into law, just who will be getting his promised "Christmas present" of tax cuts and who won't? (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

But the tipping point came in 2017, with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. That bill, championed by President Trump and then-House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, was a windfall for the wealthy: It lowered the top income tax bracket and slashed the corporate tax rate.

By 2018, according to Saez and Zucman, the rich were already enjoying the fruits of that legislation: The average effective tax rate paid by the top 0.1 percent of households dropped by 2.5 percentage points. The benefits the bill’s supporters promised — higher rates of growth and business investment and a shrinking deficit — have largely failed to materialize.

Not all economists accept Saez and Zucman’s analysis. It is based in part on their previous work, along with French economist Thomas Piketty, on the distribution of wealth and income in American society. Other economists have generated estimates of that distribution that show smaller disparities between the country’s haves and have-nots. Saez, Zucman and Piketty have defended their research and maintain that their methods are the most accurate.

On the question of tax burdens, Jason Furman, an economics professor at Harvard who chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, noted that Saez and Zucman did not include refundable tax credits, such as the earned-income tax credit (EITC), in their analysis.

The credit, which is intended to encourage low-income families to work, “is part of the tax code,” Furman said. A person who paid $1,000 in federal income taxes and then received a $1,500 credit would have a total federal tax burden of -$500, but Furman said that under Saez and Zucman’s analysis, that person would instead show a burden of $0.

That result would make total tax burdens at the lower end of the income spectrum appear higher than they are.

“The best estimates indicate that the tax system is progressive — with the rich paying a higher tax rate than everyone else,” Furman said.

Zucman countered that his and Saez’s analysis considers the EITC and other credits like it as transfers of income, akin to food stamps or jobless benefits, rather than tax provisions.

“If you start counting some transfers as negative taxes, it is not clear where to stop,” he said via email. “Do you treat the EITC as a negative tax? veterans’ benefits? medicaid? defense spending?... There’s no clear line and the results become arbitrary.”

There is general agreement among economists, however, that the tax burden of the rich has fallen considerably in recent decades.

“The rich definitely pay less in taxes than they did in the past and less than they should,” Furman said.

The bulk of Saez and Zucman’s new book explores how that happened, and how the trend might be reversed.
And unemployment is the lowest it's been in 50 years. Imagine that.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
They've been at each others throats for over a thousands years, but what we should've done is wait for a lull in the action to pull out.

I seriously saw some Orange Man Badnik saying we should do a "slow, diplomatic withdrawal".

And my eyes rolled out of my head.

Yeah, lets pull our dicks out of the hornets nest slowly and sweetly.
A slower withdrawal than pulling 50 troops out of a country? Less people than a single McDonald's franchise employs?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
A Trump-salted person stated this of Trump's withdrawal of a handful of troops from Syria-

"Perhaps the most shameful American foreign policy decision in my lifetime."

I asked the person if he was alive when the US invaded Iraq, and he answered in the affirmative.
 

Bill Lehecka

Whiny Man Baby
Donator
That's the biggest question I've had the last 3 years - where are all the moderate, well known, well respected Democrats, and why aren't any of them besides Biden running for President? Yes, there are some sensible people that have thrown their name in, but they're too young and too unknown and they haven't been able to make any headway. You'd think someone decent would have stepped in, but no. Like I said yesterday, I'm nearly positive that the majority of the party knows they can't run a wackjob like Warren. The damage of doing that would go well beyond simply losing in 2020.

It has to be Hillary. With Biden's campaign faltering and nobody else stepping in, she's pretty much all they've got.
And that’s a major problem. Because there will definitely be people in 2020 who voted for Hillary in 2016 and will not vote for her again. It won’t be a total majority, but it’ll be enough to cause a difference. It would be smart to go all in with someone that isn’t Clinton. Allowing an also-ran to stick around isn’t a winning strategy.

I just don’t see how the Dems could just allow that. It boggles my mind they are even considering it.
 

domelogic

Registered User
Top